ILNews

Senate passes new COA panel bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Senate has given its OK to add three judges to the state's second highest appellate court.

By a 47-2 vote just before 7 p.m. Monday, senators passed Senate Bill 35 that would create a sixth Indiana Court of Appeals panel and increase the number of judges from 15 to 18 starting in January 2010. Sen. Vi Simpson, D-Bloomington, and Sen. James Lewis, D-Charlestown, voted against the legislation, though no one spoke against the bill on the floor.

Bill author Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville - chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee that unanimously authorized this bill and also the leader of the Commission on Courts that's repeatedly recommended the panel's creation in past years - reminded his colleagues that this new panel of judges has been recommended for at least five years, and that it's inevitable and becomes more pressing each year.

"Each year we need it a little worse," he said, referring to a growing appellate caseload nearing 3,000 a year.

During a Senate Judiciary meeting in January, Chief Judge John Baker said the court achieved a clearance rate of 100 percent last year and maintains an average turnaround time for decisions of about 1 ½ months - two points that allows Indiana's intermediate appellate court to be able to say it's the most efficient court of its kind nationally.

While the court is doing well to keep up and the chief judge hasn't made any official request for more judges, both he and Bray said the need will eventually become critical as the ever-growing caseload continues but the judicial resources remain the same. If the General Assembly doesn't add more judges, Bray said the court will be left with options of writing fewer opinions, spending less time on cases, or decreasing the quality of its judicial work - none of those are legally desirable, he said.

"This may be subject to budget constraints and may not happen this year," he said. "But once again, we keep postponing the inevitable. If the fiscal people could find anyway to get this in, I think it would benefit our state, our legal system, and everyone."

A hurdle may arise for the legislation now that it moves to the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives: The bill's fiscal impact statement estimates spending $1.3 million the first year and $2.2 million thereafter, which could cause more legislative apprehension.

If the General Assembly passes the legislation and the governor signs it into law, the Judicial Nominating Commission would begin the selection process later this year, according to the proposal.

Reps. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, and Kathy Richardson, R-Noblesville, have agreed to sponsor the appellate judge panel legislation in the House.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT